The starting wage is more than twice that figure. And there is also medical benefits available to even part-time employees for the same deductibles as full-time employees, which is an absolute steal for a part-time job. And it is also a job with a government pension, which is something you pretty much can't get in the private sector.

More than TWICE $6? Heck that compares favourably to a cop salary! I feel safer now kthxbye

mrmopar5287:TSA keeps finding a *record* number of firearms being brought to screening checkpoints. *Record* numbers of them loaded. The weekly numbers keep increasing, and last week was an all-time record for the past 10 years.

t3knomanser:Tellingthem: well i'm sure whatever concert real tough guys go to would have acted the same.

Probably. I haven't the foggiest where tough guys actually go, but I know it sure ain't Bad Religion shows. Nerds go to those.

Well the only real defense I'll put up was at least in my neck of the woods that is what the "tough kids" listened too. We really weren't a major music scene so stuff like Slayer, COC, BR, Pantera, Tool, NIN whatever were all pretty much under the same umbrella. We listened to everything and anything rock. One of the biggest pits i've ever seen was at a beastie boys set during lollapalooza. I remember at a local club they would finish up with a pailhead song and the place would go crazy. So maybe nerds went to BR but so did a bunch of country rednecks.

sewnandsilent:Activists like this are attempting to point out the bigger picture here. It's not the security measures they are protesting, it's the reasons cited to require them and the rights which are suppressed by them. Unfortunately most people don't care about their rights so they keep calm and carry on, then crack jokes at those who do in the attempt to assimilate them back into the herd.

Seconded. Bummed out by how many people see an article from a source they've decided doesn't echo their own views right back at them and then immediately decide they don't want to read it and that it couldn't possibly point out something of interest or make a good point.

/No fan of Alex Jones.//On the right (or the "right" - not a Republican), but if friends were to point out (as they often do, since of course their biased news sources are so much better than mine) an article from HuffPo, MSNBC, alternet, or Mother Jones, I don't reject it out of hand because it comes from the "other side." 1) open-minded and well-read are usually two sides of the same coin, 2) at the very least, keep your enemies closer.

I sometimes wonder if I was the only male who paid attention during that portion of sex ed class, while the rest of the boys just sat there, slack-jawed, staring at the pictures with a vague buzzing ringing in their ears.

After the article the other day where Amanda Bynes claimed a police officer "slapped her vagina" I'm starting to wonder the same thing.

It's easy to confuse her being slapped in the vagina when she is used to being slapped on the chin.

I sometimes wonder if I was the only male who paid attention during that portion of sex ed class, while the rest of the boys just sat there, slack-jawed, staring at the pictures with a vague buzzing ringing in their ears.

After the article the other day where Amanda Bynes claimed a police officer "slapped her vagina" I'm starting to wonder the same thing.

Based on what I've learned here on Fark I'd guess slapping her vagina is well within the realm of possibility.

I have no idea what this police officer did to Ms. Bynes, but if she had recently been fisted there might be enough room for something like slapping to occur. Anyway, I was under the impression that she wanted her vagina to be murdered rather than slapped. I don't know how one would go about doing that, but it sounds a little out there even for a perv like me.

mrmopar5287:kazikian: Thing is they're not keeping anyone safer. If they were, I'd have far less problem with it. Can you name a single plot that was foiled by TSA screening procedures? We've stopped a number of attempted attacks since 9/11 but none of them via TSA screenings.

TSA keeps finding a *record* number of firearms being brought to screening checkpoints. *Record* numbers of them loaded. The weekly numbers keep increasing, and last week was an all-time record for the past 10 years.

They're probably planting them to make it look like they're doing something.

kazikian:Cewley: i'm thinking that if the tsa screenings are keeping people from doing bad shiat, then that's the price we have to pay. this twinkee can take the farking bus if she has a problem.

Thing is they're not keeping anyone safer. If they were, I'd have far less problem with it. Can you name a single plot that was foiled by TSA screening procedures? We've stopped a number of attempted attacks since 9/11 but none of them via TSA screenings.

timelady:I get pat down every time I fly. I am in a wheelchair - that tends to set off the scanners;) Not once have i been treated with anything but respect, courtesy, and kindness from the TSA. And their Aussie equivalents.

So long as you kowtow properly you rarely have trouble with the TSA (unless they find something to steal, that is.)

Where you're likely to get trouble is if for some reason you don't or can't kowtow properly. (For example, the poster above who was getting conflicting directions.)

poison_amy:These twats declined to go through the scanner, opted instead for a pat down, and recorded each other. There is nothing that will convince me that this isn't intentional outrage.

It won't load for me so I can't comment directly. However, the reality is that the backscatter units do put out x-rays and would be illegal if the law actually applied to them. The same exemption also means the machines aren't checked, they might be putting out more than they're supposed to. One should opt out of them and one shouldn't have to put up with sexual molestation to do so. (Note: Millimeter wave machines are only hazardous to your modesty.)

Misconduc:I've flown well over one thousand trips in the past two years alone - no incidents, no problems. Only thing TSA can actually do better is screening luggage they have a nice habit of just throwing crap all over the place and repacking it like they don't care.

/Oh no your vag got touched, guess what sugar? Take the bus or train and STFU and deal with it like the rest of us//these kind of people who complain about the TSA are the ones who are not stuck behind these assholes while they play their little temper tantrums - I had to wait 30 minutes to go through screening because some wacko wouldnt remove his shoes - another flight we were all boarded ready to go and some asshole who had to much to drink started having his tantrum about not using the bathroom right away, he should of went BEFORE we boarded, yet he wanted to be in the front of the line///slashes - seriously people are farking retards

You shouldn't have to put up with being molested in order to fly. The old style scanners were more effective anyway at TSAs <b>supposed</b> mission. The new stuff is far worse at seeing a well-concealed bomb (you can walk through a nude-o-scope with everything you need to bring down the plane and have no chance of being detected. It is admittedly a some-assembly-required process but nothing complex) but it does a better job at their <b>true</b> mission--drugs.

As for the guy not removing his shoes--there are medical reasons for this. TSA knows this. If there was a big delay it was because TSA was trying to make him miss his flight, not because he was in the wrong.

FlyingBacon:Sounds like shes making it something that isnt there. In a way I feel this was all planned to make TSA looks bad.

About 99.9% of people that fly knows the "drill" and I am sure these women did but they choice to make an issue of it. It was all staged on their part.

eventhelosers:Pretty much. It's pretty much a make work project for people who washed out of the real economy.

get used to it, i'd bet my taint hairs there's more to come

A couple of years ago I spent a little time in Southern Arizona. At least of those places the immigration hysteria is just seems justification to hire border control guards in southern Arizona and California. You drive through those counties and it's clear the economy blew away when all the mines closed, now there is nothing but the border control. Otherwise there is no reason for anyone to be there at all. Considering Mexican immigration is down and falling, you wonder what's going to happen when they can't make their numbers anymore.

The starting wage is more than twice that figure. And there is also medical benefits available to even part-time employees for the same deductibles as full-time employees, which is an absolute steal for a part-time job. And it is also a job with a government pension, which is something you pretty much can't get in the private sector.

I have a pension ... Private sector too .. Profit sharing, 12% total compensation 401k contribution, and full medical. You mad you work a shiatty job where your superiors take financial advantage of you? I wouldn't accept a job that offered less.

thenumber5:kazikian: Cewley: i'm thinking that if the tsa screenings are keeping people from doing bad shiat, then that's the price we have to pay. this twinkee can take the farking bus if she has a problem.

Thing is they're not keeping anyone safer. If they were, I'd have far less problem with it. Can you name a single plot that was foiled by TSA screening procedures? We've stopped a number of attempted attacks since 9/11 but none of them via TSA screenings.

you act as if the TSA only exists to deal with 9/11 style attacks

Ok, ok, I'll be fair... We obviously need some kind of security at airports. But the TSA was after all created as a response to 9/11, and hasn't had much track record with terrorist plots; the FBI has stopped a few plots, passengers stopped the shoe bomber... I have no real issue with the TSA, they never did anything terrible to me, but... Well, everything I've read about those new full-body scanners says they're useless. They are now implementing new scanners which seem much better, AND don't blast you with radiation (now, I don't remember which type is which); but we already spent millions on those old worthless scanners. As far as enhanced pat-downs: are they really going to find things regular pat-downs won't? They seem to have been implemented in response to "implanted" or keistered bombs, but they certainly won't find those. Etc. etc. I'm not against the TSA; I merely hope for intelligent screening vs. security theater.

Wow, I'm surprised by the level of suck-up in this thread. We've come to think being treated like criminals is OK?

They should defund TSA, junk the scanners, and go back to pre-9/11 security. The money spent on TSA should go to better intelligence and law enforcement. 9/11 could have easily been prevented if the FBI and CIA had done their job.

zenobia:ongbok: She defiantly got at least one in the pink. If she hadn't flinched, the screener would have slipped one in the stink.

But seriously, there has got to be a better way of doing this. Why do you have to grab peoples private areas? You can do a pat down without doing that.

Maybe they could use some kind of scanner, so they wouldn't have to touch people at all.

The scanners still suck. Once we develop a good one, this whole issue will go away... And I mean a good one that DOESN'T show you naked. I'm envisioning one that just screams "bomb" at the TSA agent in a loud obnoxious voice and preferably British accent.

You can fit some mighty big pieces of exploding plastic salamis up those things. They should do what they did on Flesh Gordon and strip the women naked and shake them up and down to see if anything falls out.

adamatari:Wow, I'm surprised by the level of suck-up in this thread. We've come to think being treated like criminals is OK?

They should defund TSA, junk the scanners, and go back to pre-9/11 security. The money spent on TSA should go to better intelligence and law enforcement. 9/11 could have easily been prevented if the FBI and CIA had done their job.

This more or less sums up all my thoughts on the subject. We had good air security before the TSA. The 9/11 terrorists didn't even bring anything forbidden on board. They weren't caught by agencies that exist specifically to catch such people. But instead of punishing the Feds, we somehow decided to punish the traveling public.

adamatari:Wow, I'm surprised by the level of suck-up in this thread. We've come to think being treated like criminals is OK?

They should defund TSA, junk the scanners, and go back to pre-9/11 security. The money spent on TSA should go to better intelligence and law enforcement. 9/11 could have easily been prevented if the FBI and CIA had done their job.

i think TSA is sponsored by Cisco, to promote online meetings, instead.

gibbon1:A couple of years ago I spent a little time in Southern Arizona. At least of those places the immigration hysteria is just seems justification to hire border control guards in southern Arizona and California. You drive through those counties and it's clear the economy blew away when all the mines closed, now there is nothing but the border control. Otherwise there is no reason for anyone to be there at all. Considering Mexican immigration is down and falling, you wonder what's going to happen when they can't make their numbers anymore.

The Border Patrol has 21,444 agents, about 86 percent of them stationed along the southern border.That's a higher total number of agents than in any year going back to at least 1924, according to data from the U.S. Office of Immigration Statistics.The biggest bump in Border Patrol staffing came under President George W. Bush. Between 2001 and 2009, the number of agents rose by about 14 percent a year on average. Between 2009 and 2001, under Obama, it has increased by about 3 percent per year

Because 9/11 changed everything. And let's not forget that our border fence isn't completed yet either. And drones. They need more drones.

Fecal Conservative:Archimedes' Principal: Anyone who still uses air travel while the TSA Gestapo has the right to touch your body, should just shut the hell up and take it.

/ hasn't and will not fly until this security theater is terminated.

This.

I would almost be willing to agree with that if a) we had decent alternatives in the country, like high-speed rail and b) there was no risk of these same procedures coming to those types of travel. Remember the "T" stands for transportation, not airplane, and you can bet your ass the second there's a terrorist attack on Amtrak, the same shiat will come to every rail station. Then what options will you have? Driving everywhere? No, the problem is all our security measures are REACTIVE instead of PREVENTATIVE. We don't have souped-up screening procedures at airports because airplanes are now more vulnerable after 9/11. Airplanes were always vulnerable; they're thin pressurized metal tubes wherein any attack is guaranteed to kill at least a few hundred people without much effort. And now after Boston, police in Denver asked people not to carry backpacks to a race there, as I'd suddenly marathons were more likely targets. It's all REACTIVE, get it? If I was a terrorist, I'd be busy looking for a place no one has ever hot before, because security there will be almost unchanged from pre-9/11 days.

cryinoutloud:gibbon1: A couple of years ago I spent a little time in Southern Arizona. At least of those places the immigration hysteria is just seems justification to hire border control guards in southern Arizona and California. You drive through those counties and it's clear the economy blew away when all the mines closed, now there is nothing but the border control. Otherwise there is no reason for anyone to be there at all. Considering Mexican immigration is down and falling, you wonder what's going to happen when they can't make their numbers anymore.

The Border Patrol has 21,444 agents, about 86 percent of them stationed along the southern border.That's a higher total number of agents than in any year going back to at least 1924, according to data from the U.S. Office of Immigration Statistics.The biggest bump in Border Patrol staffing came under President George W. Bush. Between 2001 and 2009, the number of agents rose by about 14 percent a year on average. Between 2009 and 2001, under Obama, it has increased by about 3 percent per year

Because 9/11 changed everything. And let's not forget that our border fence isn't completed yet either. And drones. They need more drones.

kazikian:Fecal Conservative: Archimedes' Principal: Anyone who still uses air travel while the TSA Gestapo has the right to touch your body, should just shut the hell up and take it.

/ hasn't and will not fly until this security theater is terminated.

This.

I would almost be willing to agree with that if a) we had decent alternatives in the country, like high-speed rail and b) there was no risk of these same procedures coming to those types of travel. Remember the "T" stands for transportation, not airplane, and you can bet your ass the second there's a terrorist attack on Amtrak, the same shiat will come to every rail station. Then what options will you have? Driving everywhere? No, the problem is all our security measures are REACTIVE instead of PREVENTATIVE. We don't have souped-up screening procedures at airports because airplanes are now more vulnerable after 9/11. Airplanes were always vulnerable; they're thin pressurized metal tubes wherein any attack is guaranteed to kill at least a few hundred people without much effort. And now after Boston, police in Denver asked people not to carry backpacks to a race there, as I'd suddenly marathons were more likely targets. It's all REACTIVE, get it? If I was a terrorist, I'd be busy looking for a place no one has ever hot before, because security there will be almost unchanged from pre-9/11 days.

Your grammer and spelling faults notwithstanding you make a compelling argument.

However, assume terrorists know that we are reactive and assume it to be a ploy! Then they are likely to estimate that their best purchase is through the well worn paths with a novel physical approach. Perhaps ceramic knives or a mini-EMP; who knows their intent? The only certainty is that 70 or 80 years at most from now you'll be pushing up daises. Stop being a farktard! Life is for living, don't fear those who will harm you! You're here for but a short while, enjoy it and don't waste time.

You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense

There's a difference between the standard pat down and the "resolution" pat down. When they touch Mr. Snappy, that's the resolution one. But the screeners will commonly give the resolution pat down to people they don't like or making a fool of themselves.

Some Bass Playing Guy:Cewley: i'm thinking that if the tsa screenings are keeping people from doing bad shiat, then that's the price we have to pay. this twinkee can take the farking bus if she has a problem.

I think most of what the TSA calls screening is absolutely bullshiat that doesn't make us any safer.

The TSA is a farce and has never made anyone safer. Biggest waste of tax dollars (outside of a war) ever

Fecal Conservative:kazikian: Fecal Conservative: Archimedes' Principal: Anyone who still uses air travel while the TSA Gestapo has the right to touch your body, should just shut the hell up and take it.

/ hasn't and will not fly until this security theater is terminated.

This.

I would almost be willing to agree with that if a) we had decent alternatives in the country, like high-speed rail and b) there was no risk of these same procedures coming to those types of travel. Remember the "T" stands for transportation, not airplane, and you can bet your ass the second there's a terrorist attack on Amtrak, the same shiat will come to every rail station. Then what options will you have? Driving everywhere? No, the problem is all our security measures are REACTIVE instead of PREVENTATIVE. We don't have souped-up screening procedures at airports because airplanes are now more vulnerable after 9/11. Airplanes were always vulnerable; they're thin pressurized metal tubes wherein any attack is guaranteed to kill at least a few hundred people without much effort. And now after Boston, police in Denver asked people not to carry backpacks to a race there, as I'd suddenly marathons were more likely targets. It's all REACTIVE, get it? If I was a terrorist, I'd be busy looking for a place no one has ever hot before, because security there will be almost unchanged from pre-9/11 days.

Your grammer and spelling faults notwithstanding you make a compelling argument.

However, assume terrorists know that we are reactive and assume it to be a ploy! Then they are likely to estimate that their best purchase is through the well worn paths with a novel physical approach. Perhaps ceramic knives or a mini-EMP; who knows their intent? The only certainty is that 70 or 80 years at most from now you'll be pushing up daises. Stop being a farktard! Life is for living, don't fear those who will harm you! You're here for but a short while, enjoy it and don't waste time.

Terrorists certainly do assume we are reactive. I don't want to use Tsarnaev as an example, because his attack was so hasty, random, and poorly thought-out, but targeting a marathon was pretty clever; there's not much security there. Rather than being novel, why not find one of the less-protected paths? I am sure our government isn't all that stupid, and has taken pains to protect the less obvious and less-visible potential targets. But in those cases, there's no need to tell anyone about it. Since everyone went batshiat-crazy about airports, placing massive amounts of VISIBLE security there serves to make people feel safer. But what good does it really do? It's hard to say, but I'm willing to bet a return to pre-9/11 levels of security would change nothing. Of course, the pro-TSA crowd can rebut that by asking how many lives I'm willing to bet, and there's no good answer to that. Because 100% control is impossible, and you can't measure how well security is working by pointing out there have been no attacks; on the other hand, you can absolutely tell security isn't working when there is an attack. So any attack will be used to justify more security, until a more sophisticated attack happens, or an attack somewhere less-secure happens, and we again have to expand security upwards of outwards or both, ad infinitum. That's what I mean by "reactive."

PS. Spelling and grammar errors? I found only one: I'd instead of if... Thanks, autocorrect.

my lip balm addiction:Cewley: i'm thinking that if the tsa screenings are keeping people from doing bad shiat, then that's the price we have to pay. this twinkee can take the farking bus if she has a problem.

Assholes like you always say that, like the only place to travel to is within the USA. Ever heard of a trans-Atlantic flight?

And for that matter, what happens when some idiot bombs a bus, and the TSA starts patting down all the hobos at the Greyhound terminal? How far do you want to take it? Until an agent is sitting in your garage and taking a blood test before you get in your car every morning?